G.R. No. 204637; April 16, 2013
LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO, Petitioner, vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and ELMER E. PANOTES, Respondents.

FACTS

In the May 10, 2010 elections, petitioner Liwayway Vinzons-Chato and respondent Elmer Panotes were candidates for Representative of the Second District of Camarines Norte. Panotes was proclaimed winner with 51,704 votes against Chato’s 47,822 votes. Chato filed an electoral protest before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), alleging various irregularities in four municipalities, including PCOS machine failures, non-compliance with COMELEC protocols, reconfiguration of CF cards, and transmission errors.
The HRET conducted an initial revision of ballots in 25% of the pilot protested clustered precincts, which showed Chato gaining 518 votes and Panotes losing 2,875 votes. Panotes filed a motion questioning the integrity of the ballots and ballot boxes, citing signs of tampering such as loose covers, broken seals, and disarrayed contents. The HRET then proceeded with the revision of the remaining 75% of contested precincts, which resulted in Chato gaining a total of 1,213 votes and Panotes losing 5,476 votes from the initial machine count.
Substantial discrepancies were found between the election returns and the physical count in 69 precincts. The HRET decrypted and compared the picture image files of ballots (PIBs) from the CF cards with the paper ballots. It found that while Chato’s name was shaded on some paper ballots objected to by Panotes, the corresponding PIBs showed “no votes” for the congressional position. The increase in Chato’s votes from the physical count correlated with the number of such paper ballots. The HRET also noted a substantial increase in stray votes due to over-voting per physical count, but the PIBs showed only a few instances of over-voting, and Panotes’s loss was proportionate to the number of ballots Chato claimed had stray over-votes.
Chato presented evidence including testimony about defective CF cards and missing PIBs. Panotes presented evidence, including testimony from election officers and a random manual audit team chairperson, to demonstrate that the integrity of the ballots and the election process in the protested precincts was preserved and that the physical count discrepancies were due to invalid votes.

ISSUE

Whether the HRET acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying Chato’s electoral protest and upholding Panotes’s proclamation.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the HRET did not commit grave abuse of discretion in its appreciation of the evidence and its conclusion that the integrity of the ballots had been compromised. The HRET’s findings—that the discrepancies between the machine count/physical count and the PIBs indicated that the paper ballots had been tampered with to increase Chato’s votes and decrease Panotes’s votes—were supported by substantial evidence. The HRET acted within its constitutional mandate as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of House members. Its factual findings, when supported by evidence, are conclusive upon the Court. The petition, being one for certiorari, could not be used to review the HRET’s evaluation of the evidence or to substitute the Court’s judgment for that of the Tribunal. No grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction was found in the HRET’s issuance of the assailed Decision and Resolution.